Casan Maquiling vs Commission on Elections

written by Howard

G.R. No. 195649 – 709 Phil. 408 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Elements of a State – People – Citizens – How citizenship is lost

Election Law – Second Placer Doctrine – Invalid COC produces no effect

Rommel Arnado is a natural-born Filipino. Later, he became a naturalized American. In July 2008, he swore allegiance to the Philippines and has renounced his American citizenship. He repeated the same oath in April 2009. In November 2009, he filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the mayoralty position in Kauswagan, Lanao Del Norte. In April 2010, Linog Balua (a rival candidate) filed a petition for the cancelation of Arando’s COC was filed. It was alleged, among others, that he re-acquired his American citizenship when he used his US passport four times from April 2009 until November 2009.

After the May 2010 elections was held, Arnado was declared as the highest vote getter while Casan Maquiling was the second highest vote getter. Arnado was later proclaimed as the Mayor of Kauswagan.

Meanwhile, the COMELEC resolved the petition earlier filed against Arnado. The COMELEC disqualified Arnado and it issued a directive for the vice mayor elect to succeed in accordance with the Local Government Code. This caused Maquiling to file a petition for intervention as he argued that he, the second placer, should be declared as the winner on the ground that the votes cast for Arnado should not count.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not was disqualified for office by reason of his use of his American passport.

2. Whether or not Maquiling should be declared as the winner.

HELD:

1. Yes. Arnado’s act of using his American passport four times after he took his oath of allegiance to the Philippines effectively countered his oath of allegiance. By using his foreign passport, Arnado positively and voluntarily represented himself as an American, in effect declaring before immigration authorities of both countries that he is an American citizen, with all attendant rights and privileges granted by the United States of America. This act however did not make him lose his Filipino citizenship BUT it disqualified him from running for public office under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code.

The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be professed at any time, only to be violated the next day. It requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and political rights granted by the foreign country which granted the citizenship.

While the act of using a foreign passport is not one of the acts enumerated in Commonwealth Act No. 63 constituting renunciation and loss of Philippine citizenship, it is nevertheless an act which repudiates the very oath of renunciation required for a former Filipino citizen who is also a citizen of another country to be qualified to run for a local elective position.

2. Yes. The Topacio Doctrine The Frivaldo Doctrine . the Labo Doctrine is abandoned by the Supreme Court. These cases opined that the second placer cannot be declared the winner in the event that the first placer in an election is disqualified for the simple reason that the second placer does not have the mandate of the electorate. As such, it should be the vice mayor elect who should be sworn in as mayor. HOWEVER, an examination of Topacio which was the basis of Frivaldo and Labo reveal that the doctrine was a mere obiter dictum.

Hence, Maquiling should be declared as the winner. Succession should not take place. In fact, Maquiling is not a second-placer as he obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified candidates. A void COC produces no legal effect. The votes cast for Arnado did not cure the defects in his COC. The votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining the winner of an election.

Read full text.

Note: This ruling on the second placer doctrine was abandoned by the Supreme Court on 22 April 2025 in Mangudadatu vs COMELEC (G.R. No. 260219)